Then, according to your logic, you support being beaten. Which leads to this:
If a gang in jail began to beat you, and it is highly unlikely that you will win, then, according to you logic, you would support being beaten. Btw, does the same apply to you being gang raped in jail?
I see no real need to continue debating. Bloom has defamed himself enough as is.
For some reason I mis-took Bloom as having a bit more reason.
No. What I mean is that your non-integrity has failed to ruin our integrity.
Just because I won’t fight something doesn’t mean I support it. It just means I know I’ll lose if I fight.
“Yes, I am one of those men”
Talk about integrity.
Good for you.
I think this thread is heading down the rocky road of moral nihilism, as it did last summer.
Then, on the same grounds, do you support the state or not?
Guys, your integrity is good. But look at what the Senate is doing. None of those men have integrity. AND YET, they’re making negotiations will all our money. Nelson sold out. Where is his punishment? How does he lose now? By losing an election?
In its current incarnation? No. But if it were more restrained, I would.
Sure, you guys win from a philosophical point of view. But I win from a political point of view. Rothbard once asked “why do people see one part of our agenda they don’t agree with and quit?” Because to accept one part is to accept all in philosophy. But in politics, not so much.
Would you support anarcho-capitalist over a restrained state?
Not in the form it’s been presented.
Does the same not apply to the state? If you accept one aspect of the state, is it not to accept all in philosophy?
Duh. They work for a system thats fundamentally designed to violate rights. What did you expect?
How can you complain about that system than defend it? I’m so confused!
Democracy is flawed by design. No one on this forum expects politician’s to do whats in our best interest(accept you maybe). We know thats a Utopian joke.
Why not?
Only if you view the state as a philosophical concept. Rather than what it really is. A political form. Politics is not necessarily about making philosophies consistent. I mean neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a consistent platform. But they have power. Politics is about power. My main concern is with power, not being morally right or wrong. Power will always manifest itself. One way or another. There is no way to beat the state. It can only be molded. I want to mold it.
Not true.
Those laws were not passed by popular referendum. They were passed by legislatures. Legislatures that are filled entirely by army generals, merecantilists, and their wealthy heirs. Not very democratic, in my opinion.
Also, in those two cases you mentioned, Jews could not vote, and blacks could not vote. Coincidence?
The flaw is not the system. It’s humans. We’re the problem.